As I've said, Scruffy is timid, rarely consenting to be petted, and often bolting to a hiding place of comfort when I approach. He actually seems to have regressed some since the last time I caught him - we had rather a fierce struggle and I suspect that I hurt him in the process. On the up side, the struggle increased his respiratory depth and rate, which was helpful as I wanted to listen to his lungs (he had started coughing again), but from his standpoint he has real reasons to be afraid.
So it occurred to me that he has these places of refuge, and I understand that smell plays a larger part in the lives of cats than it does in our lives. So I took the pillowcase from my bed and tucked it into the back of his adopted sleeping box in the hope that my scent will become associated with comfort.
We'll see what happens.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
My village is not your trashcan
I was driving home today, and someone in the car front of me at the stoplight tossed a cigarette pack out onto the street. I was reminded of a story I heard of someone braver than I: when this guy saw someone drop a cigarette butt on the floor or street, he would pick it up and approach the offender, "Excuse me, but you dropped something" The offender would then typically put out his hand to receive whatever he had dropped, and would receive the cigarette, ember end down (and often still hot) into their hand.
If I had more courage I'd do that. And I'd have done something similar here, too. Instead I just sat there in frustrated anger.
Back when I was a kid I remember going to Shea Stadium for a friend's birthday. A woman sitting in front of us (and upwind of us, more importantly) refused to stop smoking, though we asked her politely. Eventually we chanted "Lets Go Mets!" for several innings straight and filled the hood of her sweatshirt with peanut shells. I don't know that it was appropriate but it sure made us feel better.
Maybe I should start driving around with a bag of empty peanut shells: you litter in my village, I litter in your car.
If I had more courage I'd do that. And I'd have done something similar here, too. Instead I just sat there in frustrated anger.
Back when I was a kid I remember going to Shea Stadium for a friend's birthday. A woman sitting in front of us (and upwind of us, more importantly) refused to stop smoking, though we asked her politely. Eventually we chanted "Lets Go Mets!" for several innings straight and filled the hood of her sweatshirt with peanut shells. I don't know that it was appropriate but it sure made us feel better.
Maybe I should start driving around with a bag of empty peanut shells: you litter in my village, I litter in your car.
Friday, September 28, 2007
The siren song of the ambulance
Driving with the lights and siren is some of the most exhilarating and some of the most stressful driving I do. On the one hand, I get to drive fast; proceed through a red light; drive around slow, stopped traffic by crossing over the double-yellow, and of course there's all of the excitement of the call. On the other hand, I need to maneuver around drivers who drive erratically on my approach, who fail to yield because they don't hear me or simply don't care, and I'm worried about arriving too late. Oh, and the ambulance handles like a pig. A top-heavy pig.
All of this makes the driving more complex, and more demanding, but there's also the two-way radios (we've got four in each ambulance, each with several channels to chose from) the Nextel, the airhorn, and the siren. I can switch the siren over to hands-free, but then I lose my electronic airhorn (although really, it's the real airhorn that clears traffic - that thing sounds like a freight train). There's also the PA. Thank God the ambulance has an automatic transmission.
So, why do I do it? Well, there are a few reasons:
* I get to drive fast, proceed through red lights, etc
* I get to turn on the flashing lights and the siren
* I occasionally get to use theGod microphone PA: "Please move to the right" (the PA is an often overlooked asset that few drivers use, and even fewer use well, but more on that in another post)
* I get to save lives, treat the injured, etc, but...
* ... if the patient throws up, he doesn't do so on me
All of this makes the driving more complex, and more demanding, but there's also the two-way radios (we've got four in each ambulance, each with several channels to chose from) the Nextel, the airhorn, and the siren. I can switch the siren over to hands-free, but then I lose my electronic airhorn (although really, it's the real airhorn that clears traffic - that thing sounds like a freight train). There's also the PA. Thank God the ambulance has an automatic transmission.
So, why do I do it? Well, there are a few reasons:
* I get to drive fast, proceed through red lights, etc
* I get to turn on the flashing lights and the siren
* I occasionally get to use the
* I get to save lives, treat the injured, etc, but...
* ... if the patient throws up, he doesn't do so on me
Some people take their jobs too seriously
The Medical College, in its infinite wisdom, decided that all of its students' computer accounts were security liabilities, and decided that their passwords now need to be changed every 90 days. The initial setup also required using three or four of the following: uppercase letters, lowercase letters, numbers, and symbols. No more than four characters in a row could be repeated from any of the past two passwords. Or maybe it was three - I can't get into my account right now to read the requirements, so I don't have access to the email instructions.
This isn't the first time this has happened.
I really do wonder what The Medical College thinks is so valuable in our accounts. I also wonder who's making the security decisions, since the real vulnerability of the accounts has not been addressed; while I don't know of any student accounts being hacked, about once a month someone forgets to log out, and a facetious classmate makes use of this by sending an embarrassing email from the unlocked account to the whole class. Why don't logins expire after a period of inactivity, if the accounts are so valuable?
Monday I get to go in and inconvenience the IT staff when I ask them to reset my password. In the interim I will not be able to clean out my inbox and my email will meet and exceed the storage limits set by IT's administration, no doubt creating computing havoc in some corner of The Medical College's empire.
For the moment, though, it's kind of nice not to have email access - all those problems that I can't learn about and so needn't address.
Maybe I'll suggest that we be required to change our passwords every 90 hours, instead of every 90 days.
This isn't the first time this has happened.
I really do wonder what The Medical College thinks is so valuable in our accounts. I also wonder who's making the security decisions, since the real vulnerability of the accounts has not been addressed; while I don't know of any student accounts being hacked, about once a month someone forgets to log out, and a facetious classmate makes use of this by sending an embarrassing email from the unlocked account to the whole class. Why don't logins expire after a period of inactivity, if the accounts are so valuable?
Monday I get to go in and inconvenience the IT staff when I ask them to reset my password. In the interim I will not be able to clean out my inbox and my email will meet and exceed the storage limits set by IT's administration, no doubt creating computing havoc in some corner of The Medical College's empire.
For the moment, though, it's kind of nice not to have email access - all those problems that I can't learn about and so needn't address.
Maybe I'll suggest that we be required to change our passwords every 90 hours, instead of every 90 days.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Subject line, anyone?
I really dislike receiving email with no subject line. If you can't be bothered to include a subject line, why should I be bothered to read it?
Note that a subject line of "hi" is just as bad, in 99% of cases. If you're writing me to ask to borrow my flux capacitor tester, then your subject isn't "hi", it's "[can I] borrow your flux capacitor tester?"
Note that a subject line of "hi" is just as bad, in 99% of cases. If you're writing me to ask to borrow my flux capacitor tester, then your subject isn't "hi", it's "[can I] borrow your flux capacitor tester?"
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Dutch deploy special ambulances for fat people
Reuters reports that the Dutch are asking ambulance patients what their weight is, and deploying special ambulances with built-in lifts to handle patients over 220 lbs. I remember from when I was in Leeds two or three summers back that all of their ambulances were fitted with either ramps or lifts for the same reason. They thought it strange that here in the US we are still lifting our patients into our ambulances manually, and I have to agree.
The problem may be that we're just too fat. Manhandling an 800 lb patient into an ambulance isn't easy, no matter how many people you get for a lift assist or how long your ramp is. The 750 lber wasn't easy, either. I suggested we use a Ryder truck.
They thought I was joking.
The problem may be that we're just too fat. Manhandling an 800 lb patient into an ambulance isn't easy, no matter how many people you get for a lift assist or how long your ramp is. The 750 lber wasn't easy, either. I suggested we use a Ryder truck.
They thought I was joking.
Monday, September 24, 2007
President Ahmadinejad of Iran at Columbia
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is in New York today, and will be speaking at Columbia University. Perhaps I should not be surprised that this has generated controversy. I'm listening to The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC as I write this; today's broadcast includes a discussion of this issue, and seems to have garnered a decent variety of opinions.
One point that has come up is the statement by John Coatsworth, the dean of the School of International and Public Affairs, that he would invite Adolf Hitler, "[i]f he were willing to engage in a debate and a discussion, to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty". Now, debate may have been a poorly chosen word, as it invokes an image of people standing at lecterns, intelligently discussing an issue from opposing sides; but his larger point, which I think is getting missed by many people, is that President Ahmadinejad represents a very real phenomenon in the world: there are people who deny the existence of the Holocaust and who strongly dislike Israel, and who call for its destruction. There are people who are opposed to much of what the United States likes to think that it stands for. The comparison to Hitler is apt, in part because many Americans did not believe that Hitler's beliefs were as severe as they were, or that his policies were as destructive as they were. A speech by Hitler on American soil might well have revealed his views and policies for what they were, prompting the US to enter the war earlier than it did, and potentially shortening the war (including reducing the war's casualties).
(Let me be clear: I am not advocating that the US go to war with Iran. Nor am I saying that we should shut our eyes to that possibility.)
As I understand it, President Ahmadinejad was initially invited to speak to the students of the School of International Studies, some of whom will presumably go on to assist future American diplomats or even to be diplomats themselves. The point is to expose these diplomats-in-training, who may have to deal with President Ahmadinejad (or some facsimile) professionally, to a person of his views in an academic environment before the students have to deal with it in a professional environment.
At least one caller on the Brian Lehrer Show indicated that students could get this type of exposure anywhere. I beg to disagree. In school I read about racism in books, and saw documentaries on it, but the phenomenon only became real to me once I witnessed it in person. Reading President Ahmadinejad's speech in a newspaper, or even seeing it on a newsreel would not have the same effect, and would not carry the same weight as seeing and hearing him in person. If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't pay tens or even hundreds of dollars to see our favorite artists in concert, families of murder victims wouldn't want to be personally present at the trial of the killer of their loved ones, and neither the wreck of the Arizona nor that of the World Trade Center would be tourist destinations. (Incidentally, why is it that people pose for pictures in front of the tangible reminders of some of the saddest, bloodiest days in our nation's history, and smile as they do so? Thousands of people died here: why are you smiling?)
Another point is whether President Ahmadinejad will consent to be questioned, or whether he will simply deliver his speech and then refuse to answer any questions. The solution to this is to have him answer at least some questions first, as a condition for his being able to speak.
Another caller made a comparison between the university's allowing President Ahmadinejad to speak, but kicking ROTC off campus. I think that this comparison is the result of a major misconception of what Columbia is. Columbia is not a monolith, with a single dictatorial leader making all decisions. It is a collection of schools, each of which is semiautonomous, and each of which has several departments, the departments also being semiautonomous. Comparing the actions of a department of one school with those of another, or those of the upper administration, or those of the student body doesn't reveal any sort of hypocrisy, but merely underscores the heterogeneous nature of the institution. As an analogy, if I like the Yankees, but my brother likes the Mets, is my family hypocritical? Or if I'm a satunch conservative Republican in the Christian Right, but my wife is a flaming liberal Independant who identifies with the Quakers, is my family hypocritical?
One point that has come up is the statement by John Coatsworth, the dean of the School of International and Public Affairs, that he would invite Adolf Hitler, "[i]f he were willing to engage in a debate and a discussion, to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty". Now, debate may have been a poorly chosen word, as it invokes an image of people standing at lecterns, intelligently discussing an issue from opposing sides; but his larger point, which I think is getting missed by many people, is that President Ahmadinejad represents a very real phenomenon in the world: there are people who deny the existence of the Holocaust and who strongly dislike Israel, and who call for its destruction. There are people who are opposed to much of what the United States likes to think that it stands for. The comparison to Hitler is apt, in part because many Americans did not believe that Hitler's beliefs were as severe as they were, or that his policies were as destructive as they were. A speech by Hitler on American soil might well have revealed his views and policies for what they were, prompting the US to enter the war earlier than it did, and potentially shortening the war (including reducing the war's casualties).
(Let me be clear: I am not advocating that the US go to war with Iran. Nor am I saying that we should shut our eyes to that possibility.)
As I understand it, President Ahmadinejad was initially invited to speak to the students of the School of International Studies, some of whom will presumably go on to assist future American diplomats or even to be diplomats themselves. The point is to expose these diplomats-in-training, who may have to deal with President Ahmadinejad (or some facsimile) professionally, to a person of his views in an academic environment before the students have to deal with it in a professional environment.
At least one caller on the Brian Lehrer Show indicated that students could get this type of exposure anywhere. I beg to disagree. In school I read about racism in books, and saw documentaries on it, but the phenomenon only became real to me once I witnessed it in person. Reading President Ahmadinejad's speech in a newspaper, or even seeing it on a newsreel would not have the same effect, and would not carry the same weight as seeing and hearing him in person. If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't pay tens or even hundreds of dollars to see our favorite artists in concert, families of murder victims wouldn't want to be personally present at the trial of the killer of their loved ones, and neither the wreck of the Arizona nor that of the World Trade Center would be tourist destinations. (Incidentally, why is it that people pose for pictures in front of the tangible reminders of some of the saddest, bloodiest days in our nation's history, and smile as they do so? Thousands of people died here: why are you smiling?)
Another point is whether President Ahmadinejad will consent to be questioned, or whether he will simply deliver his speech and then refuse to answer any questions. The solution to this is to have him answer at least some questions first, as a condition for his being able to speak.
Another caller made a comparison between the university's allowing President Ahmadinejad to speak, but kicking ROTC off campus. I think that this comparison is the result of a major misconception of what Columbia is. Columbia is not a monolith, with a single dictatorial leader making all decisions. It is a collection of schools, each of which is semiautonomous, and each of which has several departments, the departments also being semiautonomous. Comparing the actions of a department of one school with those of another, or those of the upper administration, or those of the student body doesn't reveal any sort of hypocrisy, but merely underscores the heterogeneous nature of the institution. As an analogy, if I like the Yankees, but my brother likes the Mets, is my family hypocritical? Or if I'm a satunch conservative Republican in the Christian Right, but my wife is a flaming liberal Independant who identifies with the Quakers, is my family hypocritical?
Shadow and the mystery of the flushing toilet
Shadow has developed a fascination with the toilet. I left the door to the bathroom open by accident, and it became a bit of an issue not to hit her with the stream.
Flushing is a major phenomenon. She stands on her tip toes, fully stretched out to see and reach into the bowl. On the one hand, the movement attracts her. On the other hand, it's WATER, which is repugnant. So she makes little darting grabs, then jerks her paw away, hoping to be able to move fast enough to catch the movement but not get wet in the process.
Flushing is a major phenomenon. She stands on her tip toes, fully stretched out to see and reach into the bowl. On the one hand, the movement attracts her. On the other hand, it's WATER, which is repugnant. So she makes little darting grabs, then jerks her paw away, hoping to be able to move fast enough to catch the movement but not get wet in the process.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
The glory of steam engines
Stream engines, and I'm thinking of steam locomotives, in particular, are much more romantic than their electric, doesel, and horese-powered counterparts. I think that there are many reasons for this, not all of which have to do with the locomotives per se, but I think part of it has to do with the fact that they act, to a certain degree, as if they are living things.
I must admit that I didn't realize this on my own, but consider the steam locomotive. You may only have seen them in movies, but that's good enough. Listen to it. You can hear it breathe. And by listening to that breathing, you can tell how hard it's working: as it works harder, it breathes faster, just like we do.
Incidentally, if you're even in York, take time to visit the National Railway Museum. This museum has two large rooms that are open to the public, one each for locomotives and rolling stock. Their warehouse is also open for viewing via a catwalk, as is their restoration shop. Most of the locomotives are steam, from the 1820s through the mid twentieth century, and tucked in among all of these locomotives is a rebuilt 4-6-2 whose sides have been cut away to expose the locomotive's inner workings.
Part of the floor beneath this locomotive has been cut away and replaced rollers that press against some of the drive wheels. As the rollers spin (slowly, perhaps half a revolution per second) they cause the drive wheels to rotate. The drive wheels drive the main and connecting rods, which drive the rest of the machinery. The result is that you can see all of the locomotive's parts in motion, as if the locomotive were in use.
[Title edited 9/28/07]
I must admit that I didn't realize this on my own, but consider the steam locomotive. You may only have seen them in movies, but that's good enough. Listen to it. You can hear it breathe. And by listening to that breathing, you can tell how hard it's working: as it works harder, it breathes faster, just like we do.
Incidentally, if you're even in York, take time to visit the National Railway Museum. This museum has two large rooms that are open to the public, one each for locomotives and rolling stock. Their warehouse is also open for viewing via a catwalk, as is their restoration shop. Most of the locomotives are steam, from the 1820s through the mid twentieth century, and tucked in among all of these locomotives is a rebuilt 4-6-2 whose sides have been cut away to expose the locomotive's inner workings.
Part of the floor beneath this locomotive has been cut away and replaced rollers that press against some of the drive wheels. As the rollers spin (slowly, perhaps half a revolution per second) they cause the drive wheels to rotate. The drive wheels drive the main and connecting rods, which drive the rest of the machinery. The result is that you can see all of the locomotive's parts in motion, as if the locomotive were in use.
[Title edited 9/28/07]
James Cameron's Titanic
I found a post about "me movies," movies that really aren't good, but that I (or you, for your "me movie") like anyway.
My "me movie" is Cameron's Titanic.
I know that the movie won 11 Oscars plus any number of other awards and nominations, but really, the dialogue is poor and the story contrived. But that's not even the point, because that movie isn't about Rose and Jack. It's about the title character. The story of Jack and Rose is perhaps the world's largest MacGuffin, enabling Cameron to explore the first the ship, and then the disaster and its immediate aftermath.
As a Titanic buff, what more could I want?
Cameron's Movie on IMDB and Wikipedia.
My "me movie" is Cameron's Titanic.
I know that the movie won 11 Oscars plus any number of other awards and nominations, but really, the dialogue is poor and the story contrived. But that's not even the point, because that movie isn't about Rose and Jack. It's about the title character. The story of Jack and Rose is perhaps the world's largest MacGuffin, enabling Cameron to explore the first the ship, and then the disaster and its immediate aftermath.
As a Titanic buff, what more could I want?
Cameron's Movie on IMDB and Wikipedia.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Sackcloth and ashes
Right here, I want to say that I'm not proud of this.
While I had the cabinet door open in order to pull out a can for the cats' dinner last night, Shadow decided to explore the cabinet itself. She's done this before. I worry about her getting caught accidentally, so in an attempt to associate the cabinet with negative experiences, I closed the door after her, as I have done in the past.
The first time I did this, I opened the door again after perhaps a second. Shadow was entirely undeterred, and was still busy checking out the contents of the cabinet. The second time I waited waited - she meowed a bit, then after a minute she managed to push the door open from inside.
Last night I took a full trash can and placed it in front of both of the cabinet's doors.
I could hear her moving about from time to time, and the door thumped from time to time as she tried to push it open. I could hear her meowing piteously as I washed the dishes. Eventually, she fell silent.
I finished the dishes and waited for her to call again, as if her call might alert me to her predicament. I called her. I tapped on the cabinet door. Finally, a small, plaintive meow, and I opened both of the doors and set her free, acting as if I had just discovered that she had been trapped.
I imprisoned her for between 10 and 15 minutes. She was very happy to be freed. She purred and rubbed her face in mine for several minutes. As I write this, she is sitting in my lap. And today, when I had the cabinet open to get their breakfast, she looked in, but didn't even stick her head in, in spite of my purposely leaving the door open to see what she would do.
I think I may have scared some of the confidence and adventurousness out of her. I enjoyed those aspects of her personality. Even if I didn't, I certainly scared and abused her.
There isn't even a way that I could discuss it with her. I can't even say that I'm sorry.
I lie in ashes.
While I had the cabinet door open in order to pull out a can for the cats' dinner last night, Shadow decided to explore the cabinet itself. She's done this before. I worry about her getting caught accidentally, so in an attempt to associate the cabinet with negative experiences, I closed the door after her, as I have done in the past.
The first time I did this, I opened the door again after perhaps a second. Shadow was entirely undeterred, and was still busy checking out the contents of the cabinet. The second time I waited waited - she meowed a bit, then after a minute she managed to push the door open from inside.
Last night I took a full trash can and placed it in front of both of the cabinet's doors.
I could hear her moving about from time to time, and the door thumped from time to time as she tried to push it open. I could hear her meowing piteously as I washed the dishes. Eventually, she fell silent.
I finished the dishes and waited for her to call again, as if her call might alert me to her predicament. I called her. I tapped on the cabinet door. Finally, a small, plaintive meow, and I opened both of the doors and set her free, acting as if I had just discovered that she had been trapped.
I imprisoned her for between 10 and 15 minutes. She was very happy to be freed. She purred and rubbed her face in mine for several minutes. As I write this, she is sitting in my lap. And today, when I had the cabinet open to get their breakfast, she looked in, but didn't even stick her head in, in spite of my purposely leaving the door open to see what she would do.
I think I may have scared some of the confidence and adventurousness out of her. I enjoyed those aspects of her personality. Even if I didn't, I certainly scared and abused her.
There isn't even a way that I could discuss it with her. I can't even say that I'm sorry.
I lie in ashes.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Be careful with Tabasco sauce
My kittens are teething. You can actually see the new canines growing in alongside the old ones - it's pretty cool. But as part of the process Shadow has developed a taste for chewing at paper and cardboard. You may imagine how I'm not a fan of this, bibliophile that I am, not to mention the papers I need to grade and those I need to hand in to be graded. So I turned to the Tabasco sauce.
I'm not sure where I read this, but apparently cats don't care for the taste of Tabasco, and won't chew on anything that it's smeared on. I spent the first part of this evening smearing Tabasco on the edges of several cardboard boxes, and on several power cords (another favorite chew-toy). Then, for reasons I now forget, I rubbed at my eye.
Never do this. Tabasco sauce burns. Badly. In growing agony, I stumble toward the bathroom, flip on the light and pull off my glasses (no contacts since the cats moved in) and start splashing cold water into my eye. This does several things
- it slowly washes some of the Tabasco sauce out of my eye
- it slowly liberates some of the T. sauce still on my fingers, allowing it to wash into my eye
- it triggers my asthma, and I get short of breath
- it attracts Shadow, who is fascinated by anything that I do in the bathroom. If I'm stumbling into the bathroom, this is going to be a good show.
So it occurs to me that it might be a good idea to wash my hands. I fumble for the soap, peering through a burning eye that I'm starting to wonder if I'll need professional treatment for (viz, an ambulance and the ER, since there's no way I can drive in this state). And in my fumbling I drop the soap into a puddle of kicked-up kitty litter.
By now all of my splashing of cold water has frightened Shadow into retreating into the corner between the bathroom door and the shower stall, but the dropped soap piques her interest. I fumble around my cat and pick up the kitty litter-encrusted bar of soap. Now I have to wash the soap in order to wash my hands in order to wash my eye, which feels like its melting, along with all of the skin around it. I'm having sympathy for the Nazi officers near the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. I'm also having sympathy for my friend Mike, who was sprayed in the face with pepper spray as part of his training in the police academy.
Eventually, the pain subsides enough for me to turn off the water, sit down, and spend several minutes coughing. For the first time in months, I use my inhaler, but as is often the case, I can't breathe the albuterol in nearly as deep as I'd like to. Nevertheless, my attack subsides at a reasonable rate, probably in part due to my air filter.
I love my pets; really, I do.
I've also decided that I love my air filter.
I'm not sure where I read this, but apparently cats don't care for the taste of Tabasco, and won't chew on anything that it's smeared on. I spent the first part of this evening smearing Tabasco on the edges of several cardboard boxes, and on several power cords (another favorite chew-toy). Then, for reasons I now forget, I rubbed at my eye.
Never do this. Tabasco sauce burns. Badly. In growing agony, I stumble toward the bathroom, flip on the light and pull off my glasses (no contacts since the cats moved in) and start splashing cold water into my eye. This does several things
- it slowly washes some of the Tabasco sauce out of my eye
- it slowly liberates some of the T. sauce still on my fingers, allowing it to wash into my eye
- it triggers my asthma, and I get short of breath
- it attracts Shadow, who is fascinated by anything that I do in the bathroom. If I'm stumbling into the bathroom, this is going to be a good show.
So it occurs to me that it might be a good idea to wash my hands. I fumble for the soap, peering through a burning eye that I'm starting to wonder if I'll need professional treatment for (viz, an ambulance and the ER, since there's no way I can drive in this state). And in my fumbling I drop the soap into a puddle of kicked-up kitty litter.
By now all of my splashing of cold water has frightened Shadow into retreating into the corner between the bathroom door and the shower stall, but the dropped soap piques her interest. I fumble around my cat and pick up the kitty litter-encrusted bar of soap. Now I have to wash the soap in order to wash my hands in order to wash my eye, which feels like its melting, along with all of the skin around it. I'm having sympathy for the Nazi officers near the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. I'm also having sympathy for my friend Mike, who was sprayed in the face with pepper spray as part of his training in the police academy.
Eventually, the pain subsides enough for me to turn off the water, sit down, and spend several minutes coughing. For the first time in months, I use my inhaler, but as is often the case, I can't breathe the albuterol in nearly as deep as I'd like to. Nevertheless, my attack subsides at a reasonable rate, probably in part due to my air filter.
I love my pets; really, I do.
I've also decided that I love my air filter.
Blueair is clean air
I'm allergic to my cats. I knew this before I got them. But I figured that I could get an air cleaner, or maybe wash the cats from time to time. I bought these car wash wipes and tried them on Shadow, but she immediately started licking her self all over, so I don't think that the wash helped any. So, I went with the air cleaner. I did some research, and chose the Blueair 501, ordered it off eBay and got about 35% off the MSRP (it still cost me a chunk of change), and it actually arrived today - I didn't expect it until the beginning of next week.
My first thought was that this thing is big - it's the size, shape, and color of an overgrown tower computer - over two feet tall and all else in proportion, but I pulled it out of the box and plugged it in (no setup to speak of) though it's only been running a few hours, I feel better than I have, when at home, in several days. I still a bit congested, but the asthmatic symptoms are much less. I am impressed.
Nevertheless, I think I'll be washing the cats again.
My first thought was that this thing is big - it's the size, shape, and color of an overgrown tower computer - over two feet tall and all else in proportion, but I pulled it out of the box and plugged it in (no setup to speak of) though it's only been running a few hours, I feel better than I have, when at home, in several days. I still a bit congested, but the asthmatic symptoms are much less. I am impressed.
Nevertheless, I think I'll be washing the cats again.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
LG's resilience
Little Gray Kitten (Scruffy) has developed a cough, so, much as I knew it would be a setback in his ability to trust me (and much as I knew it would mean another bill), off to the vet we went. He was a lot easier to catch this time, since I forgot to close the door to the bathroom and he ran in there to escape me. The only thing in there to hide behind is the toilet, and now that I know to wear work gloves, that offered him little protection. Shadow came along, too, in the hopes that her presence would made things easier for him, and just in case he had something that she'd need prophylaxis against.
In the waiting room we met a very loud Doberman puppy, but eventually we were allowed into an exam room and things calmed down a bit. Turns out Scruffy's neck lymph nodes are a bit swollen, so he may be fighting something off. Another possibility is that he's trying to cough up a hairball, and the third possibility is asthma.
Since his activity and appetite don't seem to be diminished, we're playing wait and see. If it's an infection, he'll either clear it and improve, or he won't and he'll start to show other symptoms. If it's asthma, then the air cleaner I ordered yesterday or the day before should help some. If it's a hairball, well, the vet gave him something to help him pass it.
Once we were home, he disappeared as soon as he could escape the carrier, but only a few minutes later he peeped his head out from under the bookcase in order to hang out with his sister, and as they were near the computer, I offered him a finger. Surprisingly, he sniffed at it. Even more surprisingly, he allowed me to stroke him under his chin for a few moments.
Only some minutes ago, he again allowed me to pet him, albeit only for a few moments. This time, his sister wasn't even in sight. And when I came to sit down at the computer, I found both cats occupying my chair, but he allowed me to pick him up and relocate him, instead of running off.
His resilience floors me.
In the waiting room we met a very loud Doberman puppy, but eventually we were allowed into an exam room and things calmed down a bit. Turns out Scruffy's neck lymph nodes are a bit swollen, so he may be fighting something off. Another possibility is that he's trying to cough up a hairball, and the third possibility is asthma.
Since his activity and appetite don't seem to be diminished, we're playing wait and see. If it's an infection, he'll either clear it and improve, or he won't and he'll start to show other symptoms. If it's asthma, then the air cleaner I ordered yesterday or the day before should help some. If it's a hairball, well, the vet gave him something to help him pass it.
Once we were home, he disappeared as soon as he could escape the carrier, but only a few minutes later he peeped his head out from under the bookcase in order to hang out with his sister, and as they were near the computer, I offered him a finger. Surprisingly, he sniffed at it. Even more surprisingly, he allowed me to stroke him under his chin for a few moments.
Only some minutes ago, he again allowed me to pet him, albeit only for a few moments. This time, his sister wasn't even in sight. And when I came to sit down at the computer, I found both cats occupying my chair, but he allowed me to pick him up and relocate him, instead of running off.
His resilience floors me.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
That's Mr Badger
I'm not used to being addressed as Mr Badger. People either use my first name or use my last name without any title. But in the classes that I teach, particularly the SAT prep, it's happening fairly often.
Admittedly, I'm twice as old as these students, but Mr Badger still seems a bit peculiar. Usually it's the signal to hang up, because the caller is a telemarketer.
At least I now realize that they're talking to me the first time they speak, rather than only after they repeat themselves.
Admittedly, I'm twice as old as these students, but Mr Badger still seems a bit peculiar. Usually it's the signal to hang up, because the caller is a telemarketer.
At least I now realize that they're talking to me the first time they speak, rather than only after they repeat themselves.
Driving safely
A few days ago, I went off on how people generally drive badly, but I realize that I didn't indicate what good, safe driving actually consists of. So I thought I'd make a few comments on that, since I get the sense that this is a bit of a mystery to some folks.
Mind you, this is not an all inclusive description...
On learning to drive, a former girlfriend of mine said that the basic deal was to yield to anything that moves, and make no sudden movements. This encapsulates a few of the core principles of safe driving:
* if you hit something, you'll damage it, so go to great lengths not to hit anything;
* if you hit someone, you'll damage her/him/etc, so go to great lengths not to hit anyone;
* you won't always be able to see the people around you, so be sure to give them adequate warning of your actions so they can get out of the way;
* you won't always be able to see the vehicles around you, so be sure to give them adequate warning of your actions so they can get out of the way;
all of which seems pretty simple. Use the steering wheel to go around people, and use the brake pedal to stop before you hit them. Oh, and be sure to use your turn signals before turning, because there might be a bicycle in your blind spot. And use your turn signals before changing lanes, because there might be a car in your blind spot.
Note that using your signals as you turn or change lanes isn't the same thing. If I don't turn on my signal until I'm actually changing lanes, I'm going to hit you before you'll have a chance to see my signal and react to it.
Because that is the point of the signal: to give warning of what your car is about to do, and to give that warning early enough for everyone else to react to it.
Glancing toward your blind spots is also probably a good idea before changing lanes. Even if you've been good about signaling, there's no guarantee that the guy in the next lane is paying attention.
Speed is another issue. Not the speed limit, but the speed and relative speed of vehicles on a street. Speed is important because, as graduates of high school physics may remember, the (kinetic) energy of a car is proportional to the square of its speed (so if I double the speed, I quadruple the energy). And if I double my speed, I'm going to more than double (quadruple?) the distance I'll need to stop before I hit Granny as she crosses the street; all of which means that the length of road in front of me that I need to worry about becomes increasingly large. God help me if I'm only a carlength behind that 18 wheeler.
Which brings me to another point, one that I learned personally several years back. I was driving south on I-95 through Connecticut, and I was, in retrospect, following an SUV too closely. The SUV eventually changed lanes, getting out of my way, but I wasn't the reason it moved: the dead deer in the roadway was. I didn't see the deer until I was on top of it, since my view was blocked by the SUV. (Yes, I did hit the deer; no, I didn't die). Lesson: the closer you get to the vehicle in front of you, the more it obstructs your view.
I'll pass over what might have happened if the driver of that SUV had stood on his brake pedal instead of changing lanes.
Okay; enough for now. Be careful out there.
Mind you, this is not an all inclusive description...
On learning to drive, a former girlfriend of mine said that the basic deal was to yield to anything that moves, and make no sudden movements. This encapsulates a few of the core principles of safe driving:
* if you hit something, you'll damage it, so go to great lengths not to hit anything;
* if you hit someone, you'll damage her/him/etc, so go to great lengths not to hit anyone;
* you won't always be able to see the people around you, so be sure to give them adequate warning of your actions so they can get out of the way;
* you won't always be able to see the vehicles around you, so be sure to give them adequate warning of your actions so they can get out of the way;
all of which seems pretty simple. Use the steering wheel to go around people, and use the brake pedal to stop before you hit them. Oh, and be sure to use your turn signals before turning, because there might be a bicycle in your blind spot. And use your turn signals before changing lanes, because there might be a car in your blind spot.
Note that using your signals as you turn or change lanes isn't the same thing. If I don't turn on my signal until I'm actually changing lanes, I'm going to hit you before you'll have a chance to see my signal and react to it.
Because that is the point of the signal: to give warning of what your car is about to do, and to give that warning early enough for everyone else to react to it.
Glancing toward your blind spots is also probably a good idea before changing lanes. Even if you've been good about signaling, there's no guarantee that the guy in the next lane is paying attention.
Speed is another issue. Not the speed limit, but the speed and relative speed of vehicles on a street. Speed is important because, as graduates of high school physics may remember, the (kinetic) energy of a car is proportional to the square of its speed (so if I double the speed, I quadruple the energy). And if I double my speed, I'm going to more than double (quadruple?) the distance I'll need to stop before I hit Granny as she crosses the street; all of which means that the length of road in front of me that I need to worry about becomes increasingly large. God help me if I'm only a carlength behind that 18 wheeler.
Which brings me to another point, one that I learned personally several years back. I was driving south on I-95 through Connecticut, and I was, in retrospect, following an SUV too closely. The SUV eventually changed lanes, getting out of my way, but I wasn't the reason it moved: the dead deer in the roadway was. I didn't see the deer until I was on top of it, since my view was blocked by the SUV. (Yes, I did hit the deer; no, I didn't die). Lesson: the closer you get to the vehicle in front of you, the more it obstructs your view.
I'll pass over what might have happened if the driver of that SUV had stood on his brake pedal instead of changing lanes.
Okay; enough for now. Be careful out there.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Peoples in school don't know no English
One of my responsibilities is at work is to grade student essays (for those who don't know, there is now an essay on the SAT, and the whole exam is out of 2400 points.) These are essays that students write during simulated exams.
Some of these essays really suck. Nouns and verbs don't agree; past, present and future tense are all mixed together; double negatives; conversational English. I'm surprised that I haven't yet seen any IM/text message abbreviations. "I think that 2 B happy U must B able 2 communicate successfully." Except that the last two words are probably too complicated.
Some of these essays really suck. Nouns and verbs don't agree; past, present and future tense are all mixed together; double negatives; conversational English. I'm surprised that I haven't yet seen any IM/text message abbreviations. "I think that 2 B happy U must B able 2 communicate successfully." Except that the last two words are probably too complicated.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
We don't pay as much for gasoline as we should
Some time in the late '90s I drove through that spit of Canada between Michigan and Niagra Falls. Gasoline was advertised there at 80 cents per liter, which works out to a little over three dollars (Canadian) per gallon. I knew at the time that we paid very little for gasoline, compared to the rest of the world, but this was the first time I came face to face with the issue. I thought then, as I still do, that here in the US we should be paying prices on par with the rest of the world.
I realize that this is something of a self-defeating position. I enjoy driving, and I do a fair bit of it - gasoline forms a very real part of my expenses - and I don't have money to spare. But I also realize that it is because of the low price of gasoline that Americans neither invest much in public transit, nor use it. I think that the availability of gasoline has also fed into the American notion that driving is a God-given right, rather than a privilege to be granted only to those who can show adequate mastery of the necessary skills.
I am not the first to point out that our nation's dependence on oil, including foreign oil, has created real international and political problems for us. I doubt that I'm the first to propose that the low price of gasoline has reinforced that dependence by encouraging oil use and discouraging investigation and investment in alternative energy sources.
If I lived in a warmer climate, I'd probably use used vegetable oil for fuel; it's just too cold here during the winter, and I can't afford to keep two vehicles.
Since oil is an exhaustable resource, we do need to develop alternate energy sources. Unfortunately, we don't tend to invest in the future - we defer maintenance on our bridges, and prefer to treat the uninsured in the ER rather than provide them with insurance. We also seem to be devoid of a sense of personal responsibility ("Yes, I realize that my client was hypertensive, obese, had coronary artery disease and a family history of cardiac disease, and had spent the morning shoveling snow (that well-known trigger of heart attack), but it was the Vioxx that caused his heart attack.") So we need some sort of a kick to get us to act. I've long thought that high gasoline prices would provide that kick, though three dollars per gallon doesn't seem to have done very much. Maybe we need to wait for regular to go to $6.59 per gallon.
We probably won't be waiting very long.
Scruffy is Shadow's puppy
I've noticed this since about the second day after they moved in with me, though exactly how to describe it has eluded me until now. Shadow, of course, goes where she pleases, with rare interference by me. Scruffy spends much of his time following her around like a puppy, including going up to the window sill, to the food bowl, and to the litter boxes, which sit together in my tiny bathroom. It is this last behavior that I find most humorous.
I am led to wonder, though, if he was separated from his mother too early, and Shadow is a sort of surrogate.
I am also continually impressed with his resilience. Last night both cats were still scratching at their ears, so I gave them the mineral-oil Rx again. Shadow for the most part accepts this intrusion, though I don't think she's particularly thrilled about it. Scruffy has to be caught, which is always traumatic for both of us.
The chase is always centered around the bed. Typically under-the-bed is his favorite hiding spot - it is also the hiding spot that it is most easy to catch him at, as I can remove all of the boxes and other hiding places, then fold up the bed (a futon) and grab him on the third or forth attempt. So, if he doesn't start out under the bed, I chase him until he's there, then close off the bathroom and gate off the steps, then remove all of the extra hiding places.
The first two or three times we went through this, he inflicted some significant scratches on me, but I've since learned to wear socks, long sleeves, and leather work gloves. When possible I also use a towel, but I haven't yet figured out how to catch him with the towel, and so have to transfer him to it, wrapping his limbs and claws to his body but leaving his head sticking out, like a little kitty burrito.
I do worry about hurting him.
This time I caught him, and wrapped him up, and it occurred to me that if I gave him some tuna before letting him go, then he might associate the tuna with me, in addition to the chase, capture, and treatment. Unfortunately, I didn't think of this until I had him caught and wrapped up, and so hadn't prepared the tuna.
This wasn't helped by the fact that I have a manual can opener, rather than an electric one.
So once I had treated his ears, I had to carry him over the gate, down the steps and into the kitchen; find a can of tuna and the can opener; open the can (that was the most interesting part - if only I had a prehensile tail) and dump it out onto the only clean plate I could find, which involved attacking it with a fork to pry it out of the can. I then offered him some tuna with a fork, but he would have none of it.
Earlier he had showed real interest in a previous can, half of which I put on a plate and placed for the cats. Shadow immediately dug in, and I sat quietly petting her as she ate, hoping that this would serve as an example for Scruffy, and he clearly wanted the tuna, as he approached the plate several times. Each time he came to the plate I reached out (slowly and calmly) to pet him, and each time he then retreated. Eventually he just sat a foot from the plate and watched his sister eat all of the fish. He didn't get any tuna, and I didn't get to pet him.
So I was surprised that he refused the tuna now. I guess he was too scared or traumatized. When I let him go he disappeared under the bookcase (his other main hiding spot), so I placed the tuna plate out for him there, but although he came out after a few minutes and sniffed at it, he didn't eat any. Once again, it all went to Shadow.
He's looking scruffy again, too, since I haven't been able to brush him since a few days ago, when I was came upon him and his sister sitting quietly on my desk chair, and was able to pet and brush him for a few minutes. He seems to like being petted, but his fear is a more powerful motivator.
I am led to wonder, though, if he was separated from his mother too early, and Shadow is a sort of surrogate.
I am also continually impressed with his resilience. Last night both cats were still scratching at their ears, so I gave them the mineral-oil Rx again. Shadow for the most part accepts this intrusion, though I don't think she's particularly thrilled about it. Scruffy has to be caught, which is always traumatic for both of us.
The chase is always centered around the bed. Typically under-the-bed is his favorite hiding spot - it is also the hiding spot that it is most easy to catch him at, as I can remove all of the boxes and other hiding places, then fold up the bed (a futon) and grab him on the third or forth attempt. So, if he doesn't start out under the bed, I chase him until he's there, then close off the bathroom and gate off the steps, then remove all of the extra hiding places.
The first two or three times we went through this, he inflicted some significant scratches on me, but I've since learned to wear socks, long sleeves, and leather work gloves. When possible I also use a towel, but I haven't yet figured out how to catch him with the towel, and so have to transfer him to it, wrapping his limbs and claws to his body but leaving his head sticking out, like a little kitty burrito.
I do worry about hurting him.
This time I caught him, and wrapped him up, and it occurred to me that if I gave him some tuna before letting him go, then he might associate the tuna with me, in addition to the chase, capture, and treatment. Unfortunately, I didn't think of this until I had him caught and wrapped up, and so hadn't prepared the tuna.
This wasn't helped by the fact that I have a manual can opener, rather than an electric one.
So once I had treated his ears, I had to carry him over the gate, down the steps and into the kitchen; find a can of tuna and the can opener; open the can (that was the most interesting part - if only I had a prehensile tail) and dump it out onto the only clean plate I could find, which involved attacking it with a fork to pry it out of the can. I then offered him some tuna with a fork, but he would have none of it.
Earlier he had showed real interest in a previous can, half of which I put on a plate and placed for the cats. Shadow immediately dug in, and I sat quietly petting her as she ate, hoping that this would serve as an example for Scruffy, and he clearly wanted the tuna, as he approached the plate several times. Each time he came to the plate I reached out (slowly and calmly) to pet him, and each time he then retreated. Eventually he just sat a foot from the plate and watched his sister eat all of the fish. He didn't get any tuna, and I didn't get to pet him.
So I was surprised that he refused the tuna now. I guess he was too scared or traumatized. When I let him go he disappeared under the bookcase (his other main hiding spot), so I placed the tuna plate out for him there, but although he came out after a few minutes and sniffed at it, he didn't eat any. Once again, it all went to Shadow.
He's looking scruffy again, too, since I haven't been able to brush him since a few days ago, when I was came upon him and his sister sitting quietly on my desk chair, and was able to pet and brush him for a few minutes. He seems to like being petted, but his fear is a more powerful motivator.
San Francisco takes a new tack on universal healthcare
This past Friday, the New York Times reported on a new universal healthcare effort in the City of San Fransico. (No doubt other papers reported on it also, but the NYTimes article was the one that came up on my Health Econ class's discussion board). Back in the last millennium, the city's residents passed a referendum to provide healthcare for all, but until recently, the city has been unable to put together a successful program. This program, called Healthy San Francisco, came together when they took a slightly different look at the subject: since many of the city's residents already have coverage, couldn't universal coverage be achieved by concentrating only on those without coverage? So far, it appears that it can, but the program is still coming together.
The issues, for those new to the subject, include the fact that our current system for universal healthcare (viz: the emergency rooms of the nation's hospitals (viz (videlicet) is a term I don't get to use enough)) is just about as inefficient a system as Rube Goldberg could ever devise. Ill, uninsured people avoid seeking medical care (because they can't pay for it) until their situation becomes dire, at which time they report to an ER. Medical issues that at their incept might have been treated with simple, inexpensive treatment are often much worse by the time patients seek treatment, meaning that treatment is more costly in terms of time spent ill, time spent in treatment, time spent by the healthcare provider, physical and support services (X-ray, blood work, etc.) and financial cost. A wound on the leg that might initially have required cleaning, stitches, and instructions on wound care might eventually require expensive antibiotics for infection, and amputation of a deeply infected, gangrenous leg. And treatment in the ER costs more than what the same treatment might cost in a primary care setting (in costs to the provider, which are often passed along to the patient)
So SF has launched a program to address these issues. The NYTimes article is unfortunately vague on how the program is funded, since this would be the most interesting part for me, as the need for such a service is not news. Without that information, it is difficult for me to see how easily the SF program might be adapted for other communities. It will be interesting to see how the program fares
The issues, for those new to the subject, include the fact that our current system for universal healthcare (viz: the emergency rooms of the nation's hospitals (viz (videlicet) is a term I don't get to use enough)) is just about as inefficient a system as Rube Goldberg could ever devise. Ill, uninsured people avoid seeking medical care (because they can't pay for it) until their situation becomes dire, at which time they report to an ER. Medical issues that at their incept might have been treated with simple, inexpensive treatment are often much worse by the time patients seek treatment, meaning that treatment is more costly in terms of time spent ill, time spent in treatment, time spent by the healthcare provider, physical and support services (X-ray, blood work, etc.) and financial cost. A wound on the leg that might initially have required cleaning, stitches, and instructions on wound care might eventually require expensive antibiotics for infection, and amputation of a deeply infected, gangrenous leg. And treatment in the ER costs more than what the same treatment might cost in a primary care setting (in costs to the provider, which are often passed along to the patient)
So SF has launched a program to address these issues. The NYTimes article is unfortunately vague on how the program is funded, since this would be the most interesting part for me, as the need for such a service is not news. Without that information, it is difficult for me to see how easily the SF program might be adapted for other communities. It will be interesting to see how the program fares
Thursday, September 13, 2007
My cat sleeps in strange positions
She must have about forty vertebrae in her spine, based on how she twists herself about. Her head is presently under her tail and rear legs.
It's very cute, but very disturbing.
It's very cute, but very disturbing.
Providence Fire Department's Special Hazards Unit secretly works with the Justice Department
On the radio:
Providence Fire Department Engine 12*: Can we get Special Hazards down here [at this auto accident]?
PFD dispatch: Will that be for hazmat or for an extradition?
PFD Engine 12: For an extradition.
I think they meant extrication, but I can't swear to it.
*I don't actually remember which unit called in; apologies to Engine 12.
Providence Fire Department Engine 12*: Can we get Special Hazards down here [at this auto accident]?
PFD dispatch: Will that be for hazmat or for an extradition?
PFD Engine 12: For an extradition.
I think they meant extrication, but I can't swear to it.
*I don't actually remember which unit called in; apologies to Engine 12.
Fat-free rock candy
Overheard at the candy store:
Woman 1: Oh, look, they have rock candy
Woman 2, looking closely at the label: Yeah, but it's the fat-free kind, so it can't be any good.
* Special thanks to my brother, who passed this along
Woman 1: Oh, look, they have rock candy
Woman 2, looking closely at the label: Yeah, but it's the fat-free kind, so it can't be any good.
* Special thanks to my brother, who passed this along
Everybody comes to Rick's
I decided to make another attempt with the DVD player and television set last night. I put in Casablanca, and pleasantly, the cats joined me at intervals, without seeming particularly spooked. So, perhaps there was something else going on last time.
Come to think of it, if I didn't know what claymation was, I'd probably be pretty spooked by Wallace and Gromit, too.
Come to think of it, if I didn't know what claymation was, I'd probably be pretty spooked by Wallace and Gromit, too.
Declawing cats is inhumane
My mother and some friends have been after me to declaw the cats, so I thought I'd share my thoughts on why I don't consider that to be a viable option.
First, some anatomy and physiology: the cat's claws grow continually, arising from germ cells that are intimately connected to the distal-most bones of the fingers and toes; permanent claw removal thus involves removing part, or often all, of those bones. Otherwise, the claws grow back. The cat uses the claws not only to hunt, defend itself from predators, and climb, but also to stretch some of the muscles of its trunk - if you've ever seen a cat sink its front claws into something and then lean/pull back, this is what the cat is doing. The cat has no other way of stretching these muscles. The claws are also used to mark territory. Finally, the bones from which the claws grow are used by the cat to walk on.
Declawing therefor is a series of ten or twenty amputations, depending on whether only the front, or the front and back claws are removed. Tendons are cut, as are nerves and other forms of soft tissue. The human equivalent would be removing the distal-most potions of the fingers and toes - amputating everything after the last joint. All of the potential complications associated with human amputations can occur, including infection, numbness, and phantom limb pain.
Since a cat cannot make use of crutches or a wheelchair, after declawing it must walk on the stumps of its freshly amputated fingers and toes. The cat must also use these stumps to paw through its kitty litter, and if it plays, it must use the stumps for that, too. And remember that in the wild, showing signs of pain or injury is an invitation to predation; cats and other animals have learned to hide their pain and injuries. So your cat is not likely to lie around yowling in pain.
There are also long term consequences, independent of those directly associated with the amputations. Once it has lost its front claws, a cat can no longer stretch, so the muscles of its back atrophy, potentially yielding chronic back pain. The shape of the paw is changed by the removal of the bone, so the remaining bones of the limb must take on unnatural positions as the cat walks. The cat can no longer use its claws to mark its territory, nor can it easily defend its territory, as it has no claws to do so, so there may be psychological sequela as well. Refusal to use the litter box or other behavior changes may also be seen.
Please, don't declaw your cats. If you live in parts of Europe, this isn't likely to be an issue, as the procedure is recognized as inhumane and is therefor illegal. See European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, Chapter II - Principles for the keeping of pet animals, Chapter 1, Article 10. See also this site for brief descriptions of several studies involving declawing (some more directly than others).
And don't tell me to have Scruffy and Shadow declawed, either.
First, some anatomy and physiology: the cat's claws grow continually, arising from germ cells that are intimately connected to the distal-most bones of the fingers and toes; permanent claw removal thus involves removing part, or often all, of those bones. Otherwise, the claws grow back. The cat uses the claws not only to hunt, defend itself from predators, and climb, but also to stretch some of the muscles of its trunk - if you've ever seen a cat sink its front claws into something and then lean/pull back, this is what the cat is doing. The cat has no other way of stretching these muscles. The claws are also used to mark territory. Finally, the bones from which the claws grow are used by the cat to walk on.
Declawing therefor is a series of ten or twenty amputations, depending on whether only the front, or the front and back claws are removed. Tendons are cut, as are nerves and other forms of soft tissue. The human equivalent would be removing the distal-most potions of the fingers and toes - amputating everything after the last joint. All of the potential complications associated with human amputations can occur, including infection, numbness, and phantom limb pain.
Since a cat cannot make use of crutches or a wheelchair, after declawing it must walk on the stumps of its freshly amputated fingers and toes. The cat must also use these stumps to paw through its kitty litter, and if it plays, it must use the stumps for that, too. And remember that in the wild, showing signs of pain or injury is an invitation to predation; cats and other animals have learned to hide their pain and injuries. So your cat is not likely to lie around yowling in pain.
There are also long term consequences, independent of those directly associated with the amputations. Once it has lost its front claws, a cat can no longer stretch, so the muscles of its back atrophy, potentially yielding chronic back pain. The shape of the paw is changed by the removal of the bone, so the remaining bones of the limb must take on unnatural positions as the cat walks. The cat can no longer use its claws to mark its territory, nor can it easily defend its territory, as it has no claws to do so, so there may be psychological sequela as well. Refusal to use the litter box or other behavior changes may also be seen.
Please, don't declaw your cats. If you live in parts of Europe, this isn't likely to be an issue, as the procedure is recognized as inhumane and is therefor illegal. See European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, Chapter II - Principles for the keeping of pet animals, Chapter 1, Article 10. See also this site for brief descriptions of several studies involving declawing (some more directly than others).
And don't tell me to have Scruffy and Shadow declawed, either.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Happy 5768!
Tonight is the start of the Jewish Year - Rosh Hashana. In our rabbi's sermon tonight, among many other things, he mentioned the significance of this year, which is not what I thought it was.
I had always thought that the year was supposedly created 5768 years ago, but no - at the time that the calendar was created, the earth was known to be far older than five or six thousand years old. Year zero was chosen as the time of the development of writing, because with writing, information could be stored and passed down from one generation to the next.
I think that's pretty cool, and pretty pragmatic. Who wants to date their check January 3, 4,453,326,339?
I had always thought that the year was supposedly created 5768 years ago, but no - at the time that the calendar was created, the earth was known to be far older than five or six thousand years old. Year zero was chosen as the time of the development of writing, because with writing, information could be stored and passed down from one generation to the next.
I think that's pretty cool, and pretty pragmatic. Who wants to date their check January 3, 4,453,326,339?
Organic corn syrup has no calories
Overheard on NPR:
Host: Is there such a thing as organic corn syrup?
Guest: Yes, and many people think that it has no calories.
I'm not even sure how to respond to that.
Host: Is there such a thing as organic corn syrup?
Guest: Yes, and many people think that it has no calories.
I'm not even sure how to respond to that.
I got to pet the Little Grey Kitten today!
... and you didn't!
It's actually been rather a trying day, for the kittens - first trip to the V - E - T, which meant the first time back in the carrier since they moved in a little over a week ago. Smokey/Scruffy had to be chased down, and I got to hear him hiss and spit for the first time - no joy for either of us. But then Shadow was pretty easy to catch and place in the carrier. She cried a bit once we got to the vet's, while she was still in the carrier, and was able to take some comfort from me, through the bars. I wasn't happy to see her unhappy and scared, but I was glad that she took comfort from me.
Back home, let them out of the carrier - Shadow moved into the laundry basket (note to self: never leave the laundry basket lying about with clothes in it - especially if they're clean clothes) and fell asleep, while Scruffy disappeared into his lair beneath the bed. I ate lunch, took a nap, stopped by work and then went to class. On my return Shadow was very interested in being held and comforted, so we sat for an hour and change. At the end of this Scruffy made an appearance - I suppose that seeing his sister getting petted and clearly enjoying it made him think that maybe contact wasn't all bad, and he let me pet him for several minutes. This is a real breakthrough for him, and I'm especially impressed since we started the day with my chasing him and him hissing at me.
A happy Little Grey Kitten may yet be possible.
Of course, perhaps 20 min later I gingerly attempted a repeat petting performance, and he ran under the bed again.
It's actually been rather a trying day, for the kittens - first trip to the V - E - T, which meant the first time back in the carrier since they moved in a little over a week ago. Smokey/Scruffy had to be chased down, and I got to hear him hiss and spit for the first time - no joy for either of us. But then Shadow was pretty easy to catch and place in the carrier. She cried a bit once we got to the vet's, while she was still in the carrier, and was able to take some comfort from me, through the bars. I wasn't happy to see her unhappy and scared, but I was glad that she took comfort from me.
Back home, let them out of the carrier - Shadow moved into the laundry basket (note to self: never leave the laundry basket lying about with clothes in it - especially if they're clean clothes) and fell asleep, while Scruffy disappeared into his lair beneath the bed. I ate lunch, took a nap, stopped by work and then went to class. On my return Shadow was very interested in being held and comforted, so we sat for an hour and change. At the end of this Scruffy made an appearance - I suppose that seeing his sister getting petted and clearly enjoying it made him think that maybe contact wasn't all bad, and he let me pet him for several minutes. This is a real breakthrough for him, and I'm especially impressed since we started the day with my chasing him and him hissing at me.
A happy Little Grey Kitten may yet be possible.
Of course, perhaps 20 min later I gingerly attempted a repeat petting performance, and he ran under the bed again.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
September 11th, six years later
I don't think I'm alone in noting that, in spite of the fact that six years have now passed, Ground Zero remains a big hole in the ground. When the terrorists who conceived the attacks met to plan it, I doubt they expected that they would be so successful. Through bickering and politics, we have taken their attack and stretched it into a six year ordeal. Let's lick our wounds and move forward already.
I'd also like to comment some on the health issues that are connected with the events of 9/11/01. A few years back, I attended a private screening of a documentary about the environmental pollution released by the towers' burning and collapse. The main point was that the EPA and other government agencies were negligent in responding to the asbestos and other hazards, and no one should have been allowed into the affected area until a full evaluation and clean-up had taken place.
In a vacuum - that is, ignoring everything else, I think that this is true. But we should consider what we're actually saying:
* Between ventilation systems and open windows, most or all of the buildings in the area were subject to contamination. In these buildings, most or all of the rooms would be subject, especially where a central ventilation system existed to move the contaminants within the building. So, we have to evalate every building, and every room. How many buildings are we talking about? let's say 500, to make math easy. How many floors did these buildings have? This varies widely, but on average, perhaps about 10. And on each floor, there might be a average of 10 rooms or other spaces that might need decontamination. So: 500 x 10 x 10 = 50,000 rooms to be evaluated.
* Evaluation of a room for a contaminant varies by contaminant, but the simplest, quickest method may be to use a swab to wipe down an area, then evaluate whatever has been picked up by the swab by visual inspection or dipping it into a developer solution. The whole process, from walking into the room, to pulling out the swab, to wiping down the area to be tested, to developing5it and walking out might take 10 seconds. 50,000 rooms x 10 seconds/test/room = 500,000 seconds to run a single test on all of the rooms.
* It takes time to move from one building to the next; say 1 minute to get from the last room on one building to the first room on the next. For 500 buildings, this yields 499 minutes.
* 500,000sec/60 sec/min - 8333.33 minutes; 8333.33 + 499 = 9832.33 minutes; 9832.33/60 min/hour = 138.89 hours; 138.89 hours/24hours/day = 5.79 days to evaluate all potentially contaminated rooms for a single contaminant.
* Contaminants of concern included asbestos, lead and other metals, dioxin, PCBs, volatile organic compounds, and no doubt others. Consider the EPA's report; these are the contaminants tested for. If we assume that each of the tests can be done serially, as a worker proceeds through the buildings, then we only need to add 10 seconds per test to our time estimate, so 40 seconds/room x 50,000 rooms = 2,000,000 seconds for testing. Adding in the 499 minutes to get from the last room of one building to the first room of the next, and doing the math as before, we now get 23.49 days of work, merely to evaluate the interior rooms. This does not account for assembling the people and equipment, does not account for any necessary training or set up of equipment once it is on site, does not account for evaluating roof tops, does not account for looking for human remains, does not account for assessing drinking water, does not account for any clean-up or abatement, does not account for the human needs of the people doing the work (eating, sleeping, etc). This also overlooks the fact that the air over southern Manhattan is often windy - unless buildings were shrink-wrapped as they were cleaned, they would be recontaminated by debris blown off of still-contaminated buildings. This also overlooks the reports of foul smells noted in upper Manhattan, which may have been associated with the WTC fire and collapse.
*Obviously, there would be more than one person doing the work, and we'd be looking at less than 23 days for the evaluations, but we still have to face the question: how long do we want to keep lower Manhattan closed? How long can we afford, as a city and as a nation, to keep lower Manhattan closed?
My point is not that the economic importance of reopening Manhattan outweighs human health, but we are a society that has limited resources, and the more time, energy, and material we spend on one need, the less we can spend on another.
I'd also like to comment some on the health issues that are connected with the events of 9/11/01. A few years back, I attended a private screening of a documentary about the environmental pollution released by the towers' burning and collapse. The main point was that the EPA and other government agencies were negligent in responding to the asbestos and other hazards, and no one should have been allowed into the affected area until a full evaluation and clean-up had taken place.
In a vacuum - that is, ignoring everything else, I think that this is true. But we should consider what we're actually saying:
* Between ventilation systems and open windows, most or all of the buildings in the area were subject to contamination. In these buildings, most or all of the rooms would be subject, especially where a central ventilation system existed to move the contaminants within the building. So, we have to evalate every building, and every room. How many buildings are we talking about? let's say 500, to make math easy. How many floors did these buildings have? This varies widely, but on average, perhaps about 10. And on each floor, there might be a average of 10 rooms or other spaces that might need decontamination. So: 500 x 10 x 10 = 50,000 rooms to be evaluated.
* Evaluation of a room for a contaminant varies by contaminant, but the simplest, quickest method may be to use a swab to wipe down an area, then evaluate whatever has been picked up by the swab by visual inspection or dipping it into a developer solution. The whole process, from walking into the room, to pulling out the swab, to wiping down the area to be tested, to developing5it and walking out might take 10 seconds. 50,000 rooms x 10 seconds/test/room = 500,000 seconds to run a single test on all of the rooms.
* It takes time to move from one building to the next; say 1 minute to get from the last room on one building to the first room on the next. For 500 buildings, this yields 499 minutes.
* 500,000sec/60 sec/min - 8333.33 minutes; 8333.33 + 499 = 9832.33 minutes; 9832.33/60 min/hour = 138.89 hours; 138.89 hours/24hours/day = 5.79 days to evaluate all potentially contaminated rooms for a single contaminant.
* Contaminants of concern included asbestos, lead and other metals, dioxin, PCBs, volatile organic compounds, and no doubt others. Consider the EPA's report; these are the contaminants tested for. If we assume that each of the tests can be done serially, as a worker proceeds through the buildings, then we only need to add 10 seconds per test to our time estimate, so 40 seconds/room x 50,000 rooms = 2,000,000 seconds for testing. Adding in the 499 minutes to get from the last room of one building to the first room of the next, and doing the math as before, we now get 23.49 days of work, merely to evaluate the interior rooms. This does not account for assembling the people and equipment, does not account for any necessary training or set up of equipment once it is on site, does not account for evaluating roof tops, does not account for looking for human remains, does not account for assessing drinking water, does not account for any clean-up or abatement, does not account for the human needs of the people doing the work (eating, sleeping, etc). This also overlooks the fact that the air over southern Manhattan is often windy - unless buildings were shrink-wrapped as they were cleaned, they would be recontaminated by debris blown off of still-contaminated buildings. This also overlooks the reports of foul smells noted in upper Manhattan, which may have been associated with the WTC fire and collapse.
*Obviously, there would be more than one person doing the work, and we'd be looking at less than 23 days for the evaluations, but we still have to face the question: how long do we want to keep lower Manhattan closed? How long can we afford, as a city and as a nation, to keep lower Manhattan closed?
My point is not that the economic importance of reopening Manhattan outweighs human health, but we are a society that has limited resources, and the more time, energy, and material we spend on one need, the less we can spend on another.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Most of us are bad drivers, but usually it doesn't matter
When I was learning to drive the ambulance, our director said, as part of our training, "remember: 90% of driving is routine. It's when the routine is broken that accidents happen." Her point was that an emergency vehicle, in proceeding through a red light, driving left of the double yellow line, proceeding the wrong way down a one way street, etc, was breaking the routine, so extra caution was necessary to do so.
I now think that she underestimated the amount of driving that qualifies as routine - I'd put the number closer to 95% or even 99%, but her basic point is correct. We know to stop at a stop sign, and we know, too, that it is the rare driver who actually stops - most of us slowly glide through if we can do so; the ride is much more comfortable. We know which side of the road to drive on - when faced with a double-yellow line we don't have to think about how to react to it. We know that the amber light on the traffic signal heralds the red, so we'd better mash the gas so we don't have to wait the 40 seconds for the green light to come back; most of us seem to have forgotten that the amber light actually means "stop if you can do so safely". We are familiar with the flow of traffic and our place in it, we call upon our experience, and most of the time, things go well.
Problems arise when things don't go as we expect. A tire blows and our control of our car is reduced. The road surface changes drastically, and again our control is reduced. We have a green light, but due to a streetlight malfunction, we also have a red light - as does everyone else: we all proceed into the intersection and collide. But unless this happens, we tend to arrive safely at our destination, in spite of our efforts to the contrary.
Because we do actively undermine our safety. We drive too fast, we follow too close, we distract ourselves with coffee, donuts, cellphones, and reading directions. We never check the pressure on our tires. We don't read the owner's manual to our vehicles. Many of us can't be bothered to wear a seatbelt. We drive when we're impaired by drugs (typically ethanol, though OTC and prescription drugs, and other drugs are also sometimes to blame) or a lack of sleep. Because driving is easy, right?
Well, no. Or maybe more accurately, driving is easy, but driving safely is not.
This isn't necessarily our fault. We're used to our own scale, and we're designed to react to our own scale. If I weigh 140 lbs, then I'm used to moving 140 lbs around; I have a sense of how fast I can accelerate, and how fast I can stop, how tightly I can turn. If I want to pick up a heavy box, I know that the effort require to do so will relate directly to the mass/weight of that box - there's an intimate feedback that lets me know how much weight I'm dealing with, and thus how careful I need to be as I move that weight.
A small car, though, weighs about one ton. Large SUVs exceed four tons, and large trucks can weigh much more than that, but I can get those tons of machinery to move with less effort than it takes to walk - I just press on the accelerator. if I want to change my direction, I move my arm and twist a wheel, and I've probably got power steering in case that's too difficult. Stopping takes the push of a different pedal; that probably has power assist, too. The feedback is lost. The ease with which I can get the car to move belies the potential difficulty I will have in bringing it to a stop. So without meaning to, I drive too fast, follow too close. My success as a pedestrian complicates my job as a driver.
There is also the theory of risk tolerance, or risk homeostasis. According to this theory, we each have a degree of risk with which we are comfortable, though this varies between individuals. If our risk is reduced, we are willing or driven to take steps to raise the level of risk to the our level of comfort. For instance, if my car has antilock brakes, I am willing to drive the car harder and demand more of the braking system, and my likelihood of crashing remains the same. As our roads get safer, we drive faster. Similarly, safer cars yield higher speeds. I think there is something to this - armed with air bags, some drivers refuse to wear seatbelts (which is one of the more idiotic examples, as the airbag requires the seatbelt if it is to be effective, say nothing of the possibility of being hit multiple times in the same incident).
It is thus not surprising that some emergency workers have started to use the term motor vehicle collision (MVC) instead of motor vehicle accident (MVA). with all that we do to undermine our safety, they argue, a collision is waiting to happen, and is no accident. (In a similar vein, some medical practicioners are abandoning the term cerebrovascular accident (a term that includes strokes and transient ischemic attacks).)
More on this later - this post is getting to be too long.
I now think that she underestimated the amount of driving that qualifies as routine - I'd put the number closer to 95% or even 99%, but her basic point is correct. We know to stop at a stop sign, and we know, too, that it is the rare driver who actually stops - most of us slowly glide through if we can do so; the ride is much more comfortable. We know which side of the road to drive on - when faced with a double-yellow line we don't have to think about how to react to it. We know that the amber light on the traffic signal heralds the red, so we'd better mash the gas so we don't have to wait the 40 seconds for the green light to come back; most of us seem to have forgotten that the amber light actually means "stop if you can do so safely". We are familiar with the flow of traffic and our place in it, we call upon our experience, and most of the time, things go well.
Problems arise when things don't go as we expect. A tire blows and our control of our car is reduced. The road surface changes drastically, and again our control is reduced. We have a green light, but due to a streetlight malfunction, we also have a red light - as does everyone else: we all proceed into the intersection and collide. But unless this happens, we tend to arrive safely at our destination, in spite of our efforts to the contrary.
Because we do actively undermine our safety. We drive too fast, we follow too close, we distract ourselves with coffee, donuts, cellphones, and reading directions. We never check the pressure on our tires. We don't read the owner's manual to our vehicles. Many of us can't be bothered to wear a seatbelt. We drive when we're impaired by drugs (typically ethanol, though OTC and prescription drugs, and other drugs are also sometimes to blame) or a lack of sleep. Because driving is easy, right?
Well, no. Or maybe more accurately, driving is easy, but driving safely is not.
This isn't necessarily our fault. We're used to our own scale, and we're designed to react to our own scale. If I weigh 140 lbs, then I'm used to moving 140 lbs around; I have a sense of how fast I can accelerate, and how fast I can stop, how tightly I can turn. If I want to pick up a heavy box, I know that the effort require to do so will relate directly to the mass/weight of that box - there's an intimate feedback that lets me know how much weight I'm dealing with, and thus how careful I need to be as I move that weight.
A small car, though, weighs about one ton. Large SUVs exceed four tons, and large trucks can weigh much more than that, but I can get those tons of machinery to move with less effort than it takes to walk - I just press on the accelerator. if I want to change my direction, I move my arm and twist a wheel, and I've probably got power steering in case that's too difficult. Stopping takes the push of a different pedal; that probably has power assist, too. The feedback is lost. The ease with which I can get the car to move belies the potential difficulty I will have in bringing it to a stop. So without meaning to, I drive too fast, follow too close. My success as a pedestrian complicates my job as a driver.
There is also the theory of risk tolerance, or risk homeostasis. According to this theory, we each have a degree of risk with which we are comfortable, though this varies between individuals. If our risk is reduced, we are willing or driven to take steps to raise the level of risk to the our level of comfort. For instance, if my car has antilock brakes, I am willing to drive the car harder and demand more of the braking system, and my likelihood of crashing remains the same. As our roads get safer, we drive faster. Similarly, safer cars yield higher speeds. I think there is something to this - armed with air bags, some drivers refuse to wear seatbelts (which is one of the more idiotic examples, as the airbag requires the seatbelt if it is to be effective, say nothing of the possibility of being hit multiple times in the same incident).
It is thus not surprising that some emergency workers have started to use the term motor vehicle collision (MVC) instead of motor vehicle accident (MVA). with all that we do to undermine our safety, they argue, a collision is waiting to happen, and is no accident. (In a similar vein, some medical practicioners are abandoning the term cerebrovascular accident (a term that includes strokes and transient ischemic attacks).)
More on this later - this post is getting to be too long.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Speed limits don't work
I was raised to be a very concientious driver. My father, who did the bulk of the driving on any road trip, follows every law to the letter, never exceeds the speed limit (actually, he did once - it was late, and dark; he was a bit agitated because we had taken a wrong turn somewhere; and he exceeded the posted limit by three or four miles per hour - I could see the speedometer form my place in the back seat) He also makes full and complete stops at every stop sign. And as a starting driver I emulated this behavior. But, as is the case with most drivers, I started to relax a bit with time. I'm a little older now than when I was in college, and I suppose that's part of the reason why I don't drive as fast as I used to. The cost of gasoline is another - mileage plummets with excessive speed. But the road itself also plays a major role.
I realized this several months back while driving to the store. The road that I take most of the way starts out in a residential community, with a 30 mph limit, then opens up into a thinly-developed area. Here, the north- and south-bound lanes are separated by a grassy median and the lanes are wider; here the speed limit is 55 mph. For the most part, the road is straight in both areas. But the thing is this: people drive at about 40 or 45 for the whole distance. For the 30 mph zone this isn't a surprise - people seem to drive between 5 and 15 mph over the speed limit around here. But driving 40 in a 55 is not common around here in the absence of very heavy weather.
I shared this observation with someone - I now forget who, I'm afraid, and was asked in return "does it feel like a 55mph road?" It doesn't, of course. There may be a grassy median, and the lanes may be a bit wider than typical for residential areas, but it lacks the guard rails and other attributes of a parkway, far less an Interstate (did you know that Hawaii has an Interstate highways? Think about that. Interstate doesn't mean interstate.) Not long after, I found a (PDF) report of a study on, among other things, the relationship between posted speed limits and the actual speed of vehicles (see the section entitled "Operating Speed and Posted Speed Relationships", starting on page 46). Often, the 85th percentile (that is, the speed at or below which 85% of vehicles are travelling) was greater than the posted speed limit. This comes as no surprise. What was enlightening was that the relationship between the posted speed limit and the 85th percentile seemed to vary, in part, based on the type and setting of road: rural vs suburban& urban (S/U).
Rural situations tended to see a greater percentage of drivers traveling at or below the posted limit. This was especially so for two lane rural highways. S/U roads showed a lower percentage of vehicles at or below the (posted) limit, and showed a greater variation in the relationship between the 85th percentile and the posted limit. Something about the nature of the road influenced drivers in their choice of speed (yes, yes, there are plenty of variables that I'm ignoring - read the paper yourself and then come back and argue).
In a later section of the same paper ("Changes in Posted Speed Limit", p53), the effect of changing a speed limit is discussed. Of the sites evaluated, typically the initial speed limit was at the 20th percentile, while the new limit was raised to the 43rd percentile (of the original data). Following the change, the rate of driver compliance rose, suggesting that the change is speed limit influenced drivers - but that's not the case: average speeds, the standard deviation of the speed, and the 85th percentile generally changed by less then 2 mph each. Compliance rose not because the drivers followed the posted limit, but because the limit followed the drivers.
So, it would seem that there is something besides the speed limit that influences the speed of th typical vehicle, which brings me back to my drive to the market: the driver's experience of the road in the 30 mph section is very similar to the driver's experience in the 55 mph section. The grassy median is not a highway/parkway-exclusive feature; it is seen on boulevards as well. Further, it is not a standard highway feature - many highways lack a median, grassy or not (particularly in the city).
I also found the shared space philosophy (look it up on Wikipedia, and follow the references). It appears that removing roadway signs, traffic lights, cross walks, etc results, in some cases, in a reduction in the number of accidents. Personally, I think it has to do with drivers surrendering their responsibilities to the traffic control devices around them - removing the devices forces the drivers to assume personal responsibility. But whatever the case, this suggests that whatever effect speed limit signs have, it isn't a good one.
[boldface formatted 4 Oct 2007]
I realized this several months back while driving to the store. The road that I take most of the way starts out in a residential community, with a 30 mph limit, then opens up into a thinly-developed area. Here, the north- and south-bound lanes are separated by a grassy median and the lanes are wider; here the speed limit is 55 mph. For the most part, the road is straight in both areas. But the thing is this: people drive at about 40 or 45 for the whole distance. For the 30 mph zone this isn't a surprise - people seem to drive between 5 and 15 mph over the speed limit around here. But driving 40 in a 55 is not common around here in the absence of very heavy weather.
I shared this observation with someone - I now forget who, I'm afraid, and was asked in return "does it feel like a 55mph road?" It doesn't, of course. There may be a grassy median, and the lanes may be a bit wider than typical for residential areas, but it lacks the guard rails and other attributes of a parkway, far less an Interstate (did you know that Hawaii has an Interstate highways? Think about that. Interstate doesn't mean interstate.) Not long after, I found a (PDF) report of a study on, among other things, the relationship between posted speed limits and the actual speed of vehicles (see the section entitled "Operating Speed and Posted Speed Relationships", starting on page 46). Often, the 85th percentile (that is, the speed at or below which 85% of vehicles are travelling) was greater than the posted speed limit. This comes as no surprise. What was enlightening was that the relationship between the posted speed limit and the 85th percentile seemed to vary, in part, based on the type and setting of road: rural vs suburban& urban (S/U).
Rural situations tended to see a greater percentage of drivers traveling at or below the posted limit. This was especially so for two lane rural highways. S/U roads showed a lower percentage of vehicles at or below the (posted) limit, and showed a greater variation in the relationship between the 85th percentile and the posted limit. Something about the nature of the road influenced drivers in their choice of speed (yes, yes, there are plenty of variables that I'm ignoring - read the paper yourself and then come back and argue).
In a later section of the same paper ("Changes in Posted Speed Limit", p53), the effect of changing a speed limit is discussed. Of the sites evaluated, typically the initial speed limit was at the 20th percentile, while the new limit was raised to the 43rd percentile (of the original data). Following the change, the rate of driver compliance rose, suggesting that the change is speed limit influenced drivers - but that's not the case: average speeds, the standard deviation of the speed, and the 85th percentile generally changed by less then 2 mph each. Compliance rose not because the drivers followed the posted limit, but because the limit followed the drivers.
So, it would seem that there is something besides the speed limit that influences the speed of th typical vehicle, which brings me back to my drive to the market: the driver's experience of the road in the 30 mph section is very similar to the driver's experience in the 55 mph section. The grassy median is not a highway/parkway-exclusive feature; it is seen on boulevards as well. Further, it is not a standard highway feature - many highways lack a median, grassy or not (particularly in the city).
I also found the shared space philosophy (look it up on Wikipedia, and follow the references). It appears that removing roadway signs, traffic lights, cross walks, etc results, in some cases, in a reduction in the number of accidents. Personally, I think it has to do with drivers surrendering their responsibilities to the traffic control devices around them - removing the devices forces the drivers to assume personal responsibility. But whatever the case, this suggests that whatever effect speed limit signs have, it isn't a good one.
[boldface formatted 4 Oct 2007]
Friday, September 7, 2007
1) Lead cops on 100mph chase 2) Ram a cop car 3) Get rammed off road by cop car 4) Sue cops for excessive use of force
Makes sense to me.
On 30 April of this year, CNN reported on a decision by the Supreme Court concerning the (alleged - always alleged) actions of a Georgia teenager and the local police. It appears that the teen, who was driving with a suspended license, didn't want his car to be impounded. A cop had tried to pull him over for speeding. Instead of complying, the teen led police on what dashcam footage shows to be a > 100 mph case, crossing the double-yellow line to pass "about three dozen cars" (the article isn't clear if this was in one pass or several). Apparently, he also rammed a police car after it tried to block him into a parking lot that he had entered in his escape attempt. At this point the cop radios his supervisor, asking for permission to use "potentially deadly force" to stop the fleeing suspect. The supervisor assents, giving permission to use the PIT maneuver, but later (whether during the chase or after is not clear in the article) the officer says that the suspect is going too fast, and he (the officer) is worried about involving other drivers. So he rams the suspect's car, sending it off the road, injuring the suspect and leaving him a quadriplegic (there is a link for a video clip from the dash cam of one of the involved police cars, but the necessary plugin isn't free.). Later, the suspect sues the police for using excessive force.
I have to say, the teen has chutzpah.
Lower courts held that the teen had a right to sue (after all, this is AMERICA - I can sue you because I don't like the color of your shirt); the Supreme Court overruled this, 8-1, essentially dismissing he case. The argument for the dismissal was that the teen presented a real, severe, and immediate danger to the public; forcing him off of the road was in the public interest. The lone dissent stated the reverse: "I can only conclude that my colleagues were unduly frightened by two or three images on the [dashcam] tape" that played an important role in the police officer's defense. I guess that the roads and the drivers around Washington, D.C. are better than those around here: how is driving at > 100 mph on a two lane road, or crossing the double yellow line to pass about a dozen cars not dangerous, in a real and immediate sense, to anyone else who happens to be on that road with you?
Now, I'll admit that CNN doesn't comment on what the traffic was like at the time that the officer decided to ram the suspect's vehicle instead of using the PIT maneuver. It is possible that there were no other cars in sight, and that the officer could see enough of the road ahead to determine that there was no traffic that might get ensnared in a PIT maneuver, though I'll also repeat that the officer considered the PIT to be unacceptable at the speed of the suspect's vehicle. But at 100 mph you're traveling 100/60 = 1 and 2/3 miles every minute. If a vehicle is approaching you from the front at only 20 mph, then the you're getting 2 miles closer to that vehicle every minute. No doubt the roads in Georgia are different than the frost-battered ones of New York, but I rarely get the privilege of seeing even one mile ahead of me on the interstate, far less two miles ahead of me on a two lane road, and not considering the potential of vehicles entering from side streets or driveways. That's a lot of road for John Q. Public's vehicle to be hiding in. Isn't protecting the public part of what a police officer is supposed to be doing?
Finally, I am aware of the argument that the police could have broken off the chase. That's a discussion for another day. And I'm aware that being a paraplegic for life is tough punishment for refusing to pull over for a speeding ticket. Life isn't fair. But if we believe that our legal system should be fair, is it any more fair to force punishment on a police officer for actions that protected the public?
And don't even get me started about bad driving.
On 30 April of this year, CNN reported on a decision by the Supreme Court concerning the (alleged - always alleged) actions of a Georgia teenager and the local police. It appears that the teen, who was driving with a suspended license, didn't want his car to be impounded. A cop had tried to pull him over for speeding. Instead of complying, the teen led police on what dashcam footage shows to be a > 100 mph case, crossing the double-yellow line to pass "about three dozen cars" (the article isn't clear if this was in one pass or several). Apparently, he also rammed a police car after it tried to block him into a parking lot that he had entered in his escape attempt. At this point the cop radios his supervisor, asking for permission to use "potentially deadly force" to stop the fleeing suspect. The supervisor assents, giving permission to use the PIT maneuver, but later (whether during the chase or after is not clear in the article) the officer says that the suspect is going too fast, and he (the officer) is worried about involving other drivers. So he rams the suspect's car, sending it off the road, injuring the suspect and leaving him a quadriplegic (there is a link for a video clip from the dash cam of one of the involved police cars, but the necessary plugin isn't free.). Later, the suspect sues the police for using excessive force.
I have to say, the teen has chutzpah.
Lower courts held that the teen had a right to sue (after all, this is AMERICA - I can sue you because I don't like the color of your shirt); the Supreme Court overruled this, 8-1, essentially dismissing he case. The argument for the dismissal was that the teen presented a real, severe, and immediate danger to the public; forcing him off of the road was in the public interest. The lone dissent stated the reverse: "I can only conclude that my colleagues were unduly frightened by two or three images on the [dashcam] tape" that played an important role in the police officer's defense. I guess that the roads and the drivers around Washington, D.C. are better than those around here: how is driving at > 100 mph on a two lane road, or crossing the double yellow line to pass about a dozen cars not dangerous, in a real and immediate sense, to anyone else who happens to be on that road with you?
Now, I'll admit that CNN doesn't comment on what the traffic was like at the time that the officer decided to ram the suspect's vehicle instead of using the PIT maneuver. It is possible that there were no other cars in sight, and that the officer could see enough of the road ahead to determine that there was no traffic that might get ensnared in a PIT maneuver, though I'll also repeat that the officer considered the PIT to be unacceptable at the speed of the suspect's vehicle. But at 100 mph you're traveling 100/60 = 1 and 2/3 miles every minute. If a vehicle is approaching you from the front at only 20 mph, then the you're getting 2 miles closer to that vehicle every minute. No doubt the roads in Georgia are different than the frost-battered ones of New York, but I rarely get the privilege of seeing even one mile ahead of me on the interstate, far less two miles ahead of me on a two lane road, and not considering the potential of vehicles entering from side streets or driveways. That's a lot of road for John Q. Public's vehicle to be hiding in. Isn't protecting the public part of what a police officer is supposed to be doing?
Finally, I am aware of the argument that the police could have broken off the chase. That's a discussion for another day. And I'm aware that being a paraplegic for life is tough punishment for refusing to pull over for a speeding ticket. Life isn't fair. But if we believe that our legal system should be fair, is it any more fair to force punishment on a police officer for actions that protected the public?
And don't even get me started about bad driving.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Beware the danger of buttered microwave popcorn
My parents don't like butter on their popcorn. We used to have a hot oil popper - this was in the days before the microwave - and at most we'd add a little bit of salt to the finished, popped corn. And for years I believed that this was the way that I liked my popcorn to be. Poor misled fool. Perhaps six months go, I discovered that I do like a bit of butter in my popcorn.
Now buttered (microwave) popcorn is being linked to respiratory infections. It appears that a man ate microwave buttered popcorn twice a day for perhaps ten years, and often intentionally inhaled the steam that escaped when he opened the bag - this steam is high in heated diacetyl, which has long been linked to COPD in popcorn plant workers - lung disease. Apparently his home had diacetyl levels that rivaled those of microwave popcorn plants.
Timing is everything.
But the incident actually reminds me a bit of the current situation with products imported from China, because the link between diacetyl and lung disease is not new; OSHA has long been studying this phenomenon in popcorn plant workers, though they have yet to do anything about it. But now the problem has spilled over to the end user, so now it's a national crisis. The difficulties with Chinese imports started with tainted pet food, then moved to lead paint in toys, and I forget what else. And, China is taking steps to remedy the problem. But, according to an interview I heard on NPR earlier this week (and that I'll have to find a citation for - don't take my word for it until that cite's in place), China's quality control issue isn't new, either: they've been poisoning their own people for years. What's different here is that it is affecting the bottom line as a major importer of China-made articles is growing leary of them.
It's all about the dollar, or your local equivalent - your MU.
And I'm left wondering: does melamine counteract the effects of diacetyl?
Now buttered (microwave) popcorn is being linked to respiratory infections. It appears that a man ate microwave buttered popcorn twice a day for perhaps ten years, and often intentionally inhaled the steam that escaped when he opened the bag - this steam is high in heated diacetyl, which has long been linked to COPD in popcorn plant workers - lung disease. Apparently his home had diacetyl levels that rivaled those of microwave popcorn plants.
Timing is everything.
But the incident actually reminds me a bit of the current situation with products imported from China, because the link between diacetyl and lung disease is not new; OSHA has long been studying this phenomenon in popcorn plant workers, though they have yet to do anything about it. But now the problem has spilled over to the end user, so now it's a national crisis. The difficulties with Chinese imports started with tainted pet food, then moved to lead paint in toys, and I forget what else. And, China is taking steps to remedy the problem. But, according to an interview I heard on NPR earlier this week (and that I'll have to find a citation for - don't take my word for it until that cite's in place), China's quality control issue isn't new, either: they've been poisoning their own people for years. What's different here is that it is affecting the bottom line as a major importer of China-made articles is growing leary of them.
It's all about the dollar, or your local equivalent - your MU.
And I'm left wondering: does melamine counteract the effects of diacetyl?
Having kittens has given me new insight to my father
For the first several days, I had thoughts and hopes of idyllic kittens, playful when I wanted to be playful, quiet when I wanted to be quiet, biddable, etc. Of course, I expected there to be a few bumps along the way, but I didn't consider that the cats would each have their own personalities, goals, fears, etc, which mught be different than my own. What was I thinking?
Shadow and I had a bit of spat the other day when she considered herself to be entitled to some of my breakfast. I may consider this differently in time, but for the moment I'm trying to be very careful with their diet. So Shadow was not happy with me. No purrs for me, no soliciting my attention if I wasn't in the kitchen, preferring to play by herself rather than play with me. And I thought of my father - the hopes and dreams he had for me as a kid, and who I turned out to be. I didn't want to play ball with him, I didn't want to see him when he came home, every night it seemed, after my bedtime. I'd hear him come home, I'd know he'd like to see me, but I would turn the light off and pretend to be asleep. Different situations, but the same feeling of rejection. I'd never really considered my father's point of view at any length until prompted to do so by a three month old cat.
Shadow and I had a bit of spat the other day when she considered herself to be entitled to some of my breakfast. I may consider this differently in time, but for the moment I'm trying to be very careful with their diet. So Shadow was not happy with me. No purrs for me, no soliciting my attention if I wasn't in the kitchen, preferring to play by herself rather than play with me. And I thought of my father - the hopes and dreams he had for me as a kid, and who I turned out to be. I didn't want to play ball with him, I didn't want to see him when he came home, every night it seemed, after my bedtime. I'd hear him come home, I'd know he'd like to see me, but I would turn the light off and pretend to be asleep. Different situations, but the same feeling of rejection. I'd never really considered my father's point of view at any length until prompted to do so by a three month old cat.
My cats and my television don't mix
So, we had an interesting incident today: I plugged in my TV and DVD player for the first time since the kittens moved in, and put in Wallace & Gromit: The Wrong Trousers, both to see what the cats would think of the TV phenomenon and because I enjoy the movie, and hadn't seen it in a while. Shadow, the more confident (much more confident) of the kittens sat at the foot of the TV stand and watched. I picked her up for a brief period, and held her close enough to the screen to touch it, she pawed a bit at the images, and all seemed well (Smokey was further off, as was to be expected, he being somewhat timid). But when I moved their cardboard scratching post, which lives at by the TV stand, Shadow jumped as if startled. A minute later I accidentally touched her, and she leapt again. This is a cat that hasn't been more than mildly startled by anything else so far. So the TV is off, and will remain so in the short term, if not the long term. Ditto for the Playstation.
This is probably a good thing, given how much time I've spent in front of the thing.
This is probably a good thing, given how much time I've spent in front of the thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
